1

MEMORANDUM

To: Gil Wood, EPA

From: Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.

Date: November 5, 2012

Subject: Notes from October 30, 2012 Meeting with EPA and HPBA at RTP, NC

____________________________________________________________________________________

Participants:

John Crouch, HPBA (main presenter)

David Menotti, Crowell & Moring, LLP (Attorney for HPBA, called in)

Bob Ferguson, Ferguson Andors & Co (Product development consultant to HPBA, called in)

Gil Wood, EPA

Mike Toney, EPA

Greg Green, EPA

John Kinsey, EPA

David Cole, EPA

Larry Sorrels, EPA

Amanda Aldrich, EPA

Chebryll Edwards, EPA

Beth Friedman, EC/R

Jill Mozier, EC/R

Synopsis of HPBA position: 

John Crouch of Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA) presented HPBA’s power-point “road 

show” created to educate the states regarding issues impacting the wood heater NSPS (~75% of 

meeting) and hydronic heater rule concerns (~25% of meeting), and explained that the presentation 

would be put on a CD to give to the states at the Minneapolis meeting. David Menotti and Bob Ferguson

supplemented John Crouch’s presentation via phone. EPA asked questions to clarify HPBA’s 

conclusions, as well as clarified EPA’s and the state’s concerns, as needed. EC/R observed and took 

notes.

HPBA’s main points regarding the wood heater NSPS included that HPBA shares certain common goals 

with the states and EPA (of improving air quality, replacing uncertified polluting stoves, and continuing

to improve the real-world performance of certified stoves), but contends that the research shows that:

 EPA’s current test methods are not precise enough to differentiate between 4.5 g/hr and 3.0 g/hr 

even within the same lab (HPBA claims the variability is ±3 g/hr not ±1 g/hr);

 There is no correlation between certification values and real-world emission rates, and that the 

ranking of the best performing stoves in the real-world situation are not accurately predicted by 

the lab certification tests;
2

 The inherent variability in burning wood (especially cordwood versus cribwood) contributes 

greatly to the disconnect between real-world and lab results, and even contributes significantly to 

the lack of same lab precision;

 A standard < 4.5 g/hr is not cost effective ; 

 A review of the AP-42 data set, based on comparing in situ measurements with known 

certification test data for the models measured in the field, shows that while overall certified 

stoves are better performers, there is no correlation between the certified value and the real world 

emission rates and that the rank ordering changes between the two measures.

 Tightening the standard (i.e., lowering the NSPS passing grade) or test parameters (e.g., density) 

would merely increase the cost (decrease available models and make available models more 

expensive) and not improve certification test precision (exclude some good-performing stoves 

from market unnecessarily), which would slow change-outs and further disconnect EPA 

certification with real-world performance; 

 EPA Method 28 (M28) requirement for Category 1 runs at a burn rate <1.0 dry kg/hr (based on 

in-situ test data in development of NSPS) doesn’t correspond to the original intent to match realworld use patterns. This is because the in-situ field tests measured the heater temperature at 

higher (cooler) location on the stack as an indication of the end of the test versus the lab tests

using a zero delta weight scale reading as the end of the test. Thus for the same event, the in-situ 

test values would show shorter burn times than corresponding lab tests. The draft ASTM method 

increases the minimum burn rate requirement to 1.15 kg/hr; and

 Overall efficiency, unlike combustion efficiency, is not a surrogate for CO emissions, does not 

correlate to particulate emissions, and is not necessarily precisely measured -- and furthermore 

including overall efficiency in standard would eliminate ~1/3 of models that currently meet 4.5 

g/hr standard.

HPBA therefore concludes that tightening the NSPS standard is counter-productive to the goals of 

improving the real-world performance of stoves and improving air quality, and proposes that:

 To improve real-world performance, EPA should focus not on certification numbers but rather 

on low burn rates and getting away from crib testing altogether (i.e., moving to cordwood);

 M28’s low burn rate protocol should be changed to better reflect real-world burning and to better 

allow for a clean burn by increasing the allowable start-up time during the pre-burn time to 

provide effective fire-starting draft and hotter start than lab currently requires, and by a modest 

increase (15%) in the minimum combustion air setting; and

 Overall efficiency (which includes heat transfer efficiency, not only combustion efficiency) 

should not be added to the standard, but rather merely disclosed to the consumer on the hang tag,

which will allow marketplace pressure to drive efficiency improvement and thereby achieve 

efficiency goals in a few years without the need for enforcement.

HPBA’s main points regarding changes to the proposed Hydronic Heater (HH) standard include that:

 Education is needed (for states) regarding what is and is not a well-operated HH with BSER;

 EPA’s HH voluntary program has been a success because tremendous progress has been made in 

HH emission reductions in a relatively short period (26 cordwood models and 13 manufacturers 

under voluntary program since 2004); and 
3

 A 0.32 lbs/MMBtu heat output standard represents 90% control, this is the number that EPA had 

at least implied to manufacturers was the draft NSPS target in 2010, and this is also the limit 

which is attainable (the lower co-proposed standard of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu will put all U.S. 

manufacturers but Central Boiler out-of-business if the compliance deadline is immediate);

 Specific (draft) key elements be included in ASTM’s Partial Thermal Storage (PTS) Method in 

order to level playing field between European- and American-made HHs;

 Precision of EPA M28 WHH has not been determined (but it’s unlikely that it’s more precise 

than wood stove method due again to inherent variability of wood as fuel);

 Format of standard already indirectly regulates efficiency since Btu is part of units; and

 EPA should not proceed with the 0.15 lbs/MMBtu co-proposal immediately but rather stay with 

the 0.32 lbs/MMBtu limit as the standard and have a reasonable time for improvements.

Discussion Highlights (EPA and HPBA):

 EPA noted that SIP planners typically double the certification numbers and would therefore 

contend that the real-world emission limits are already being considered in SIPs.

 EPA noted that there have probably been technological improvements to wood stoves since 1995 

(compared to dataset Dr. James Houck looked at and on which HBPA is basing their assertions). 

HPBA responded that there has been very little money for R&D so basic woodstove technology

is unchanged, and further that the points made regarding the precision of the lab testing are still 

valid since it’s the same test.

 EPA noted that according to a meeting with Hearth & Home Technology at their in-house test 

lab in Colville, they test on cribs and cordwood both, in order to ensure real world performance 

in addition to lab performance. Thus, their certification numbers are not that far away from realworld values. HPBA responded that there is almost no data on cordwood in labs using M28.

 HPBA asserted several times that a stricter standard would slow the rate of change-outs of the 6 

million uncertified stoves that are still in the field and have 2 to 3 times higher emissions than 

certified stoves. They note that 86% of PM comes from these 6 million uncertified stoves so 

change-outs should be a primary goal. EPA responded that OID has been supporting changeouts 

for over a decade but our partners typically only achieve change-outs on the order of 100 to 150 

stoves per project, so how long would it take at that rate to change-out 6 million uncertified 

stoves?

 EPA cautioned HPBA that allowing companies to manufacture 0.32 lbs/MMBtu hydronic 

heaters for very long is not the goal of most states given their concern about insults to air quality. 

Further, EPA cautioned that EPA never stated nor implied the NSPS standard wouldn’t go down 

to 0.15 lbs/MMBtu or even lower. Nonetheless, EPA understands that one of HPBA’s concerns 

regards the timeline needed to meet such a standard. HPBA contends that such a low limit will 

put almost all manufacturers of HH out of business, that even European models are at ~0.2 

lbs/MMBtu, depending on how they are tested, and that there is almost no data to support a 0.15 

lbs/MMBtu limit. EPA asked what a reasonable time would be. HPBA noted that “they did not 

institute a nuclear attack against EPA’s earlier discussion of perhaps 5 years.”

 EPA is interested in HPBA’s position regarding inclusion of a short-term PM emissions testing 

requirement for hydronic heaters, not as an emission limit, but on order to provide data for future 

rule making. HPBA noted that data does not currently exist for that form of a standard, but has 

no problem with data generation effort to inform a later emission standard.
4

 EPA noted that it would likely not have time to wait for ASTM to finish their development of 

refined test methods but rather will likely have to proceed without an official ASTM refined 

method, and further noted that some states’ air programs cannot join ASTM. HPBA noted that 

the ASTM process has some rigor and suggested that the participation question perhaps needed 

to be asked differently to states’ attorneys generals regarding ASTM membership because some 

of these same states have, for example, transportation agencies that are ASTM members. HPBA 

noted that they will contact Mary McKiel, the EPA NTTA Coordinator, for assistance in this 

matter.

 HPBA is still working on their independent cost analysis and trying to make it consistent with 

OMB guidelines. EPA noted that OMB commonly looks at certain parameters, e.g., 5th year 

impacts, so that they have comparable analysis between rules. The group also discussed whether 

a longer model life could be considered in the analysis.

 In response to EPA question regarding whether certain add-on technologies would be less 

expensive to manufacture compared to a complete re-design, HPBA responded that EPA should 

be wary of such add-ons because consumers will not necessarily keep sophisticated technology

in proper working order. HPBA will respond more formally to this EPA question in docket.

 HPBA explained that in order to move away from crib wood testing, there are advantages to a 

middle-ground cordwood “off-ramp” in the NSPS which gives industry the option (not 

requirement) of testing using cordwood instead of crib. This bridge concept could incentivize 

experts in the field and create a generation of appliances based on cordwood rather than crib, but 

frankly industry is currently cautious to adopt and leave familiar crib-based testing system. In the 

meantime, HPBA assured EPA that the industry was burning cordwood and collecting data. EPA 

expressed support for cordwood option and for industry collecting data. In response to industry’s 

concern that some states would jump to requirement of cordwood testing, EPA noted that EPA 

cannot tell the states to not do so and suggested that HPBA might consider approaching states 

like Washington and Oregon directly for discussions of whether they could assure that cordwood 

would not yet be required as the only method, but rather that there be a transition period before 

agreed-upon Year X when cordwood testing would be the requirement. EPA noted that OR and 

WA may be receptive. 

 Issues in testing with cordwood include loading density, operating at the low burn rate and start 

up can be more difficult.

 EPA agrees that old existing woodstoves are a major problem and encourages thinking creatively 

about the standard, trade-offs, etc. (e.g., like the averaging concept using for fleet vehicles).

 HPBA suggested removing referencing numbers from hang tags and using a focus group at the 

Expo in Orlando (spring 2013) to help simplify and clarify tags, which are currently too 

complicated in their opinion. EPA thought that it would be possible to participate in the focus 

group effort.

 EPA wondered about certified installers of woodstoves to ensure proper installation, chimney

height, and to educate consumer about proper burn techniques, etc. HPBA could envision such a 

system with, for example, signed legal paperwork by installer being sent to EPA.